i need some explanation or i just don't know whether i like our legal system :)))).

i was in cour today for my own matter (a stole cell phone, if you still remember). while i was waiting to hear my own fate, i got to see a trial without a jury.

the guy was speeding at twice the speed limit (75 in 40) when he went by the police officer. officer got him on a radar. then the guy saw him, stepped on his break and went to about 60. police officer drove behind him. the guy was all over the road, couldn't control his car. the police officer put his lights on, the guy pretended to stop, then continued on driving. finally, police officer blasted his siren, the guy stopped.

smelled of alcohol, cases of beer on his back seat, red glassy eyes. first recital of english alphabet (not letter skipping, just straight forward abc's) took thim through H, second chance at it took him through P.

walked out of the car, had to level himself at EVERY step he took. bent down to tie his shoe and fell over. refused to take the 9 step test.

was arrested (thank you G-d!), booked. when being booked, refused to take the breathalizer, saying that someone told him to refuse him even if really drunk (striken).

the guy brings his friend of 8 years and his father as witnesses. (i would bring odnoklassniki.ru to say how cool i am, and?)

the guy takes the stand. states that he recited his abc's correctly both times. says that he was not drunk. he was all over the road because he didn't know this way and was just looking for an exit. admitted that he was speeding.

Ika, NOT GUILTY on drunk driving. WHAT THE FUCK?!

the evidence presented did not come to beyond a reasonable doubt.

sure, he was found guilty at driving outside of marked lanes (a whooping $100! and speeding - $200).

What's to take away from this? Even if you are drunk out of your mind, but don't take the breathalizer (sp?), and have your father and friend in court -- it doesn't matter what the police officer says?!

it wasn't the ADA trying the case, but a student under (forget the rule, but you know). the ADA was sitting next to him. the D had a very good atty, but HELLO, he couldn't walk straight!!! and admitted to speeding. when asked whether he had anything to drink, he put his face inside the collar of his jacket to answer. and when asked again, he said that yes, he did have a few drinks. the police officer has an experience of booking 350 drunk fucks.

the judge was "helping" the student in a way. for example, he told him that he needs to lay a foundating before bringin in the radar evidence. he also talked to him a lot about beyond a reasonable doubt during the closing statement.

i just don't understand what else needs to be present in a case like this?

Honey, here's your answer. If I had an OUI I would want it in front of McCormick.It would take me about three hours to lay out for you what Commonwealth needs to present in order to win the case. I would be happy to just tell you or put it down sometimes during a week-end

sorry for all the spelling mistakes i'm making. i still can't catch my breath from what i saw this morning!

well, if you want to have another one of your lj lectures and write down what is beyond a reasonable doubt in our great Commonwealth, i would love to read/hear it.

as for now, i'm going to get drunk out of my mind, french kiss a police officer who stops me, recite my abc's as if there are only 10-15 letters, and speed away into a sunset. i know i'll get away with it.